CAMPAIGNERS fighting plans that could see incinerators built in Northwich and Middlewich have given the thumbs down to a consultation document which they call a 'sham'.

Members of protest group CHAIN, the Cheshire Anti-Incineration Network, says the document, entitled Our Waste, Our Challenge - The Need For An Energy From Waste Facility, doesn't give residents who are opposed to plans to burn household waste a voice.

The Cheshire Waste Partnership, comprising the county and borough councils, says it is committed to reducing and recycling as much waste as possible, but points out that this will not eliminate the need for residual waste treatment.

Its preferred approach to tacking the ever-growing waste mountain - last year Cheshire sent the equivalent of 50,000 double decker buses to landfill sites - is to recycle at least 40% of household waste. It would then treat the remaining residual waste, turn what can be turned into a 'refuse-derived fuel' to sell to big business, and then burn the remains in one or more energy from waste facilities, or incinerators.

The county has already earmarked Brunner Mond land between Lostock Gralam and Rudheath and another site at Brooks Lane Industrial Estate in Middlewich as being suitable for incinerators, and while the county insists there are no plans in the pipeline yet, campaigners fear it will only be a matter of time before energy from waste plants spring up in Mid Cheshire.

A spokesman for CHAIN, which is opposed to incineration and would rather see the county impose a 'zero waste' policy, said: 'Right from the title page the county council makes no effort to hide the fact that its preferred option is simply to burn Cheshire's residual waste, yet it dresses it up as public consultation where you get to choose not whether we should burn our waste, but simply what type of burning of waste we would prefer.

'This document makes very alarming reading. There is no option anywhere for you to say that you don't want to burn waste.

'When the results of this sham of a consultation are unveiled the council will no doubt delight in telling you that having consulted the electorate of Cheshire, you chose to burn Cheshire's waste and the council is simply acting on your wishes.'

CHAIN claims the council's key options for Cheshire effectively offers two choices - to 'burn stuff, or treat stuff before burning it'. Because the county has 'totally discounted the possibility of a zero waste strategy for Cheshire', energy from waste via thermal treatment (where waste is either incinerated or is heated to produce gas) or energy through mechanical biological treat-ment facilities (where residual waste is pre-treated before being burnt in an energy from waste facility) leaves 'no choice, as you are still burning', according to the group.

The spokesman added: 'There is also no mention of the fact that 'energy from waste' is widely discredited as being a 'waste of energy' as it destroys more calorific value than it creates, quite apart from destroying forever irreplaceable resources and replacing them with dioxins and toxic ash.' One option, according to the county, is for one incinerator in the whole county to treat all of Cheshire's residual waste, but CHAIN says the county has not considered the environmental impact of transporting waste, or the health risks to the local population.

Another option for a number of smaller modern 'energy from waste' facilities built across the county over a period of time - possibly including Northwich and Middlewich - should have lower 'individual impacts' than one large one, according to the Partnership - but CHAIN says, collectively, they would have a worse impact.

A further scheme to build a number of mechanical biological treatment facilities to pre-treat the waste followed by burning it in energy from waste plants only 'perpetuates the need' to burn Cheshire's waste 'ad infinitum'.

A county spokesman said: 'In the next two years alone, the Cheshire Waste Partnership will be investing more than £10m to improve recycling and composting across Cheshire. We will also be continuing to run waste minimisation initiatives.

'Nevertheless, there will still be a significant amount of residual waste left. We can no longer continue to send all of this residual waste to landfill.

The county council said residents will receive their questionnaires over the next few days. The council's consultation will be subject to public inspection at Winsford Civic Hall on Friday, October 22, from 6pm, Northwich Memorial Hall on Tuesday, October 26, from 6pm, and Middlewich Civic Hall on Tuesday, November 2, from 7pm. And why not write to Your Views - the address is at the top of the panel on the left - with your comments.

CHAIN's reaction to document on rubbish

CWP: 'Missing the 2010 target (to reduce land-filling by 25%) by just 10% would mean a fine of over £3m a year. This fine would have to be paid for by either reducing other council services or increasing Council Tax'.

CHAIN: Nobody wants to pay more in Council Tax and these sentences clearly play on people's fear. There is no mention that Vale Royal, from a standing start in April 2004, is now recycling more than 40% of all household waste, and that repeated across the county this would mean that we would not be in a position where we could be fined.'

CWP: 'We can reduce our need for residual waste treatment but we can't eliminate it altogether.'

CHAIN: 'Why not? Other countries have and other councils are planning to.

'Why is Cheshire so adamant that it cannot be done?

'Bath and North East Somerset and Doncaster are all introducing a zero waste strategy and they all see it as feasible, so should we.'

CWP: '84% of respondents agreed that 'energy from waste options, which may include incineration, should be considered once as much recycling and composting as possible has taken place.'

CHAIN: What does this mean? 84% sounds a big number, but it is not 84% of people living in Cheshire, nor indeed 84% of the electorate. It is 84% of people who replied to the public consultation in 2001. These respondents were not offered any other alternatives, such as a zero waste strategy rather than inclination so the survey results are meaningless.'